thnx very much really helpful

thnx very much really helpful

I am an appropriation artist and think and teach about these things. I am not an expert on this case or Koons' case. However, all of my research, and I have paid lawyers to look into this for me, tells me that if it is in the public domain, you are fine. It is also about the percentage that you alter the image. I think these stipulations have some resonance for regarding morality, especially in the way it sits with this particular case. Penelope Umbrico's work does not look like the work she appropriates. I agree with her that it is, "annoying," to have to defend appropriation art at large because of this case. I do not agree that Prince should have fair game and is not subject to law or common decency. He can make his points and be rebellious without being a slime bag. Unless - if his intention is to point out that the work and genre he appropriated are qualitatively bad, adding to cultural mediocrity, are bourgeous, etc - if he is making a cultural statement about that, maybe that would be interesting - alas we are talking about this in terms of money - that is the only recourse or basis for a forum for discussion in our culture. Very sad.

Matt from East Tennessee,

IMO your missing the point that it is not their property to to make a judgment call. It's worth is not up to the artist appropriating it and just because something common place doesn't make it free.

You may think I'm not getting the concept but there is a bigger concept in play here. That being if it's not yours it's just that; not yours. To exercise control over other people's property without their permission is just plain wrong.

It could also be argued that in the case of the sunsets it wasn't a mere sampling of a minor element in the compositions but the actual meat and concept of the pictures themselves. There were plenty if legal ways to obtain the pictures she needed to make her point without stepping on the rights of others.

A discussion by two people of the same mindset? How does this make sense? Rather than having on Mr.Rip (off) you should have had an attorney who represents photographers, and artists, not someone who represents big buisness. Just because Mr.Rip has dabbled as an author, hardy qualifies him to offer an opposing view point. This report was not up to Studio 360's usually high standard. You should have had on someone like ASMP's General Counsel, Victor Perlman.

Like all photographers, Penelope Umbrico arranges the materials of the world into meaningful configurations. Photographs now, more than ever, are a fundamental element in people's experience of the world--in entertainment, advertising, print, internet, etc. Sharing between friends via Flickr and Facebook has become an important and inescapable aspect of contemporary life. Nobody's sunset picture on Flickr is going to make them money, so it's ridiculous to argue that Umbrico has disenfranchised other artists to make a fast buck. Photographs of sunsets are like snowflakes: yes, each one is unique, but they're all pretty much the same and they descend in numbers too large to comprehend. Umbrico's work, to stretch the metaphor, forms the flakes into a snowman. It makes perfect sense, to make work about the ubiquity of images using ubiquitous images--it would actually be pointless had Umbrico used her own photographs. Those critics who can't get past the idea of artists fabricating every element of their creations are missing the point of this intelligent and relevant work.

He sell's his work for "millions a piece" yet the very structure and foundation of 'his' pieces are . . someone else's work?!! are you ****ing sh*tting me?

Disgusting thievery, out-right theft. Tell you what why doesn't 'Richard Prince' just PhotoShop out everything in the image that isn't his, and then see how well his art sells?

It's incredibly insulting to the originator of the initial works, although if both partys agree how about the plagiarist pays a 99% fee to the originator? yep. that'd do it.

Just my opinion*

Michael from Akron,

Both artist in your examples Picasso and Marcel Duchamp; were from a time period before current law and drew from public domain. Copyright and IP protection does not stop derivative works from public domain or even from protected work with permission or agreement between both parties.

If the owner of the original work does not want derivative works to be done the argument can't be that I have a right to make money off your hard work just because I want too.

Late in his career, Picasso produced new paintings that were variations on pieces by Velasquez, Manet, and many other masters. Marcel Duchamp's ready-made L.H.O.O.Q was produced by adding to a postcard Mona Lisa. If the work is about a conversation or commentary on the work being appropriated, then it makes sense that the author should NOT be compensated because their prior work is the subject. However, if the subject is something else entirely, and the artist is using the appropriated work basically as stock photography, then I think compensation is in order.

Even if appropriation is legal. I find the attitude towards the appropriated work high-handed and patronizing. I think that appropriation should be handled in the same way as sampling in the music industry.

If a work is appropriated wholesale and the qualities of the original work are still very plain to see, the artist appropriating the work should pay the author of the appropriated work, whether it is a postcard that the artist deems sentimental or not.

If the intrinsic quality of the original work is still very evident, how can you PROVE that the sale is in a market inaccessible to the author of the appropriated work. If anything, surely it suggests the opposite: there is nothing about the intrinsic visual quality of the work that PRECLUDES it from sale in the art world. If the photographer of the rastas had been given a show by the gallery representing Richard Prince who is to say that this work wouldn't have sold very well? Ah but of course this would never happen because he is a lowly photographer without benefit of the true artist's promethean verbiage.

Art Appropriation is always about context. It is an artists tactic to alter or pull back into a current setting a particular work and add to it a new layer of thought—extracurricular meaning.

The attorney Michael Rips said, "At the end of the day, however much you appropriate — whatever you're commenting on — before you can have a copyright violation you have to show damages. You have to show that the person from whom you borrowed has been economically injured."

That is simply not an accurate telling of the law. Title 17 section 107 reads as follows:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.

Only the last factor, number 4, has to do with damage to the value of the original. It is important to appreciate that these are factors, not elements -- in that elements are requirements but factors are merely components of varying weight to be considered in determining if an appropriation is fair use or not.

There are cases where the 4th factor is found to be minor, but in light of the other 3 factors a copyright infringement is still found. Attorney Rips misleadingly overstates the commercial impact factor as being controlling, when it is not.

Mr. Rips is quoted above to say "You have to show that the person from whom you borrowed has been economically injured." I'm pretty sure that is not required to prove the infringement occurred or that the law has been broken.

IMO appropriated art is just another way to say it is derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. The simple act of creating such work without permission for commercial purposes can and IMO does dilute the original works. The problem is that these artist do not recognize photographers as artist when in fact they are and are covered under intellectual property laws. You wouldn't graffiti a statue and declare it as your own original work.

I also note that Ms. Umbrico had the opportunity to purchase sunsets from any number of stock houses with license to use for commercial purposes. Instead she chose to take images from flicker without asking any of the photographers for permission. I can only assume that she somehow feels entitled to take other peoples work and make a profit from it without compensation to anyone. Would that fall under it's not against the law if you don't get caught? While I note that intellectual property theft is not a criminal offence but one of civil law; just to take from others because you can't afford to do it legally or just cause you want to is IMO deplorable.

Betsy from NYC -- The statement that Koons purchased the cards in an airport is widely referred to in discussions of the case, but if you have information to the contrary we'll stand corrected. The Koons argument, if I understand it correctly, was not a qualitative one about Rogers' work (i.e., crappiness), but hinged on the fact that Rogers worked primarily on commission as a portrait photographer and not as a fine artist. But, as you point out, that argument did not win the case.
Michael Rips' views about that case and the Prince case are his own opinions, of course, and do not represent Mr. Andersen's or the program's.

Let's call "APPROPRIATING" what it really is. "STEALING"

Jeff Koons' lawyer is blatantly lying about the photograph & photographer that Koons' ripped off in the '90s. The photographer, Art Rogers, is a successful artist in California. Koons purchased the card, in a boxed package of cards of Rogers' work, at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art! SFMOMA was the publisher of those cards! This is not "airport" crap that the lawyer tried to pass it off as. Koons ripped off a fellow artist who showed in the same "high" art venue as himself. In this case, Koons lost the case. It speaks for itself.

Kurt Anderson should do a little more homework on his guests in order to prevent such a biased perspective due to lying.

This issue has already been documented as part of the cannon of Art History...
Check out http://www.warholstars.org/chron/lnx/flowrs64.html

Andy Warhol's FLOWER Paintings
ANDY WARHOL'S FIRST SHOW AT CASTELLI'S
NOV. 21 - DEC. 17, 1964

Andy Warhol's FLOWERS were based on a color photograph of hisbiscus blossoms taken by Patricia Caulfield which appeared in the June 1964 issue of Modern Photography magazine. (AWM11). When Caulfield saw Warhol's Flowers, she brought a lawsuit against the artist and was offered two sets of Flowers portfolios as payment for use of her work, but she declined the offer and a cash settlement was arranged.

"Andy realized that he had to be very careful about appropriating for the fear of being sued again. He opted to start taking his own photographs. His entry into photography vis a vis his creation of silkscreen paintings was done out of necessity." -––– Gerard Malanga (AWP116)

Question for Penelope Umbrico:...What would you do... if I just "appropriated" your image entitled "Detail from Suns (From Sunsets) from Flickr"...had a large format, super hi res scan made at a Trade Show Graphics company . Then spent 10 minutes (or so) to "color correct" a few areas. And finally, "copy and pasted" into a repeating image.. over a 20' x 20' substrate... and signed it , lower right?

Does that "suddenly" make it MY ART?
I don't think so...UNLESS I have YOUR permission and have given YOU a check for the rights to use YOUR image.

The images on the internet are not "for the taking".
PLAY FAIR...take your own photos.

Glad you're enjoying the show, J.P. -- you should be able to find us through iTunes at this link:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/studio-360-from-pri-and-wnyc/id73799286

What a great show!! Thank you, Why am I unable to just go to iTunes and load up on episodes onto my iPhone and listen going down the road? UUGGHH!